Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: Donation suggestion contests feedback

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: Donation suggestion contests feedback
Page 2 of 2<12
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
9/4/2024 15:04:57   
1stClassGenesis
Member

… I’ll be very disappointed if this continues to be a 2-month long event.

It felt like there was too long a lull period, and I’d like to be able to have it be shortened if not non-existent, corresponding to a shorter event duration that sees greater activity throughout. I dislike rehashing points, but for the sake of completeness, increasing the daily number of miscs given out encourages said greater activity.

Something new I’d like to discuss is “eligibility”.

I dislike the current implementation of “clock a daily battle or donation” to be in the pool for 24 hours (or until reset, it’s not clear to me). I dislike the idea of “clocking a battle or donation” to be eligible throughout, or for a week either, as I think this incentives non gameplay (I.e. I’ll login once just for the tokens). I don’t have an elegant solution, I’m hoping some ideas can be thrown out and considered for future donation events.

Lastly, I think it would be sad if this thread ends with a typical PR “thank you for your feedback”. I hope The Hollow would be able to share some of the feedback that have a fair and reasonable probability of being implemented next iteration, so that at the very least, players feel heard.
Post #: 26
9/4/2024 16:05:17   
Aura Knight
Member

A major issue is that deciding rewards becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. This would be fine if there were no rivalries.

AQ DF AQW  Post #: 27
9/4/2024 16:56:52   
Dardiel
Member

I agree that 2 months feels very long with the current format. I could imagine an alternate format where the process of choosing a set starts and finishes before the donation contest starts, and then the contest just runs for a shorter time. Theoretically other things could be done to make the contest itself more exciting, as typically the first day is fun and the last day is when things "matter" and all the positions get locked in. It's tough for the middle period to be exciting since at that point the event is neither new nor urgent like the first/last days are.

That does remind me though, from what I hear it was more or less an "accident" that the server would cap donations at about 200 thousand per 10 minutes; I think having a cap on donation speed is a good thing, since it does tell players "if you donate enough above the person below you, you can guarantee your spot" which gives both safety and incentive to donate more. The size of the cap would definitely be up for debate though since a 200 thousand cap was a big deal among the top 5 but nowhere else. I have a theory that's probably not worth the effort, but who knows; the theory would be:

Assume donation contest runs for 30 days
- For the first 19 days, no donation cap and donations are as normal
- On the reset between day 19 and 20, snapshot the current standings (current top 5/25/50/100/200). On the leaderboards, add a column for "Final Day 10-minute cap" - this will be the maximum amount that a player can donate in a 10-minute period, but ONLY on the last day. Example caps:
- - Top 5: 100,000
- - Top 25: 25,000
- - Top 50: 10,000
- - Top 100: 5,000
- - Top 200: 2,500
- - Everyone Else: 1,000
- On days 20-29, no donation cap and donations are as normal
- On day 30, the cap is in place; a player's sniping ability is determined by their placement from day 20.

This would come with the assumption that the donation system could gain an upgrade to let a player deposit any number of tokens and have them distributed at the capped pace (or just all at once prior to the last day), so that a player who didn't donate until the last day could throw 10,000 tokens in and not have to manually do 20 installments; same for players wanting to donate a few million and would rather not have to click 400 times (200 times clicking "5000", 200 times clicking "donate again"). Either way, there would also have to be a system recognizing when a player is trying to donate more than their cap would allow them to donate before the end of the contest and would refund the excess.

The logic behind the theory is:
- It gives the mechanic of "donate enough and you'll be safe" to all tiers; if you're in the top 100 you can know that being 2,500 above #101 in the final ten minutes lets you relax.
- It spread activity out: The first days are for people that want to declare intent and to get their participation done right away; the middle will be a boost in the competition from people that want to be best at sniping / resisting sniping at the end, and the final day or two would be when players push to gain/hold their ideal standing. Players would have motivation to participate at multiple points throughout, with multiple checkpoints of "if you donate more tokens, you'll be safer going forward".

I'm sure there's issues with the idea, but overall I do think that caps would be nice to have on the final day for both peace of mind and encouraging more donations.
Post #: 28
9/5/2024 11:23:46   
Sapphire
Member

I dont mind the length of the contest. I think it feels longer because there's a Lull once players obtain the daily prize. This is why in my suggestion, halfway through that the prize should change.

I also think any change to the system shouldn't result in less donations. Now, I'm not talking if it results in 50 million then it's a failure. I view this year as perhaps an outlier. If the system results in 25 million when the last 2 were above that, then those changes would be a bad idea.

I think having some aspects of a competition along with some guarantees it would be a good mix.

Again, if we went to an account-based into the vault system, the only reason to play on all chars is the daily item. But playing on 1 char is enough to make your vault eligible. But the guaranteed tiers would need to expand greatly.

Instead of 2k and 4k or w/e they are, these need to be more like 5k for the shield (this is basically a normal token item) 15k for the misc, 25k for the weapons, 50k for the pet, 150k for the armor.


This years overall tokens were much higher, but this is almost exclusively due to the fight that occurred 1-7. Most of the rest looked much like last year. So having 2 years with very similar results notwithstanding the top, these would look like:

Top 200 (weapon) TY = 8.,125

New Tier = 25k


Top 100 (Pet) TY = 50,550

New Tier = 50k

Top 50 (Armor) TY = 224,550

New Tier = 150k

So the barrier to entry for the lower stuff is a bit more, but the barrier to entry for the higher stuff is lower.

But by making it account based, we will have more players with equal access to token donos. This will make up for the higher barrier to entry on the low end.

Secondly, I guarantee you we have players who WANT to go for higher tiered items but they wait to see where the numbers start to go. Once they see they climb out of reach or what they'd be willing to donate, they decide to keep their tokens.

Keeping their tokens = no need to buy token packages the rest of the year.

With this I think we would see more 50k and 150k donations from many, many more players to get the now guaranteed amount. This will offset the fight between 25-50.


Furthermore, keeping top 25 to fight over Custom gear will still incentivize more token donating. Also my proposal expanded the very top from 5 to 10, with 6-10 being a lower reward than Dev Ticket and more akin to a war reward. (So no custom art)

These expanded top end fights will do 2 things.

1. Going to account based will *slightly* lower players total token donos as more will go to others. SO as an example, I got 200k this year. Maybe with account based, I'd get 170, 180k instead. I'd still get enough to get the base stuff for starters, but the combination of expansion of top 5 to top 10, keeping top 25 a competition, and expanding the number of players spending via the guarantees will offset the token loss, re-igniting it back up to 200k for my account , if not more.


I think the total proposal I out forth is the best path forward. The proposal is a wholistic approach and removing an y one aspect places certain ideas in a vaccum and ends up lessening the entirety of the idea. So it needs to be all or forget it.
Post #: 29
9/7/2024 6:16:36   
CH4OT1C!
Member

I find the length of the Summer Donation contest to be somewhat excessive, particularly given that the token donations are bimodally distributed at the start and end of the event. With that said, I have a much bigger problem with the number of release weeks dedicated to the event. This year, we've already had:
  • 1 x Release for the custom weapon reskins from last year.
  • 1 x Release for this year's donation event.
  • 1 x Release for Warwolf's Weapon, Shield and Pet.

    In addition, we are due:
  • 1 x Release for Warwolf's Armour and Misc.
  • 1+ x Release for the Fungibushi set.
  • 1/2 x Release for the new house.

    As you can see, currently at least five weeks of the annual release schedule are dedicated just to the Summer contest! That's more than Frostval! Between all the other seasonal content, dedicating that much time to just one event seems wasteful, given how that time could otherwise be spent.

    I also want to point out that the tension generated by this contest, as mentioned in my initial post, still hasn't abated. Yesterday, I was accused of using underhanded tactics to support the campaign of a set for a third time by the same person, this time simply for posting in the GBI section on the mechanics underlying one of the sets. To reiterate, this comes despite me choosing not to support any individual set, and even casting protest votes. This kind of polarisation is completely unsustainable.

    < Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 9/7/2024 6:34:40 >

    _____________________________


    		•
    AQ  Post #: 30
    9/8/2024 4:31:54   
    ming shuen
    Member

    		@CH4OT1C!
    I disagree with your point on the lack of abated tension. All of this (re)ignited because a giftmaster decided not to share their choice of Golden Dev Ticket item and you didn’t like their reasons. They have the right to keep the item private and out of the spotlight. And well, you do have a tendency to create GBIs and / or propose changes on spotlighted items. For example, when I suggested bringing back Chaos Slayer Clerics, you jumped in and made it spell-caster lean. This was a greatly appreciated example, though there are certainly other instances that are the opposite

    You use your protest vote as an excellent shield, but you did state your intentions in several different discord messages. I am sure you can present it in a manner that goes something like “It is technically not this, though seemingly extremely close to that, but . . .” , like a quintessential academic, and perhaps it may be true, but can you blame people for raising questions?

    Anyway, I am a member of all AQ discords, and I believe I can say that everyone was civil and relaxed until your argument with the giftmaster. Despite my requests and that of several others to not go further and / or end the conversation, you escalated and hence new tension was created. Everything was calm until then

    TLDR: Tension has abated and everything was calm. Your argument created new tension that should not be conflated with previous tension. Hence this instance cannot be used as an example for change. Valid arguments can be made about tension during the contest, and perhaps a week afterwards, but beyond that - I disagree with its suitability. A tad semantical, but it seems somewhat appreciated in this community

    On another note: I agree with you that the length of the contest is excessive. I also agree that having so many release weeks dedicated to this is too much. We are missing out on story-releases and class revamps
    AQ DF MQ  Post #: 31
    9/8/2024 11:45:30   
      Lorekeeper
    And Pun-isher

     

    		 Let's not devolve to importing conflicts from elsewhere in the forums. Open as we are to taking feedback, there is a line that professional distance demands that we draw. Much as it pains us, we can see the arguments ourselves when we have to verify the nuance of what is reported. We neither need, nor can allow, player conflicts to be relitigated on official channels.

    The scope of the hostility has not escaped us, particularly in the years of being subject to it as well. Frankly, it's profoundly saddening to see our players fighting. Rest assured, then, that we are thoroughly aware of the unsustainability of the situation, and of the need to find a new balance of how to meet needs while avoiding pitfalls. We appreciate the feedback on how to accomplish that.
    Post #: 32
    9/14/2024 4:19:56   
    1stClassGenesis
    Member

    This post pertains to the Winter Donation Drive.

    I have to applaud staff for the changes to the Gold donation drive last year. I think they are a step in the right direction, but there is a group of players who are still ostracized from the additional rewards (i.e. the Top 100 Gold donors) — Adventurers who put in the time and effort to contribute to the overall pool. Specifically, those without Guardian+ on the account.

    Why I believe this to be an issue, is that due to the great disparity between how much an Adventurer can make daily vs how much a Guardian+ can make daily (~4x more), an Adventurer’s contributions will never be acknowledged when looking at Top 100 Gold through the lens of absolute values. Indeed, there are no Adventurers in the Top 100 Gold of last year (or even years prior).

    With that in mind. I propose the following hand-in-hand changes:

    – Limit donations to come from max levelled characters only (135 for Adventurers, 150 for Guardians and X-Guardians).
    – Limit Gold Donations to a hard cap of ~120% of Gold Cap daily.
    – Instead of rewarding Top 100, reward those who exceed a benchmark X% of Gold Cap donated (for example, (50 days x 120)% of Gold Cap donated.*

    Other highly recommended changes:

    – Implement a Gold Treasure Chest that costs 2 billion gold, and have it be somewhere Adventurer-accessible (i.e. NOT the Guardian Shop in the Guardian Tower).
    – If possible, increase the probability for, or limit, Gold donations to go to active non-maxed levelled characters NOT on the same account.

    Point 1 incentives non maxed levelled players to play the game more. It rewards max levelled players for their generosity in putting time and effort into gold capping and donating the gold to active non-maxed characters. Moreover, it has the added advantage of not having non-maxed levelled characters recklessly donate to the point of being unable to afford higher levelled gear as they progress.

    Point 2 accounts for the fact that donations can go to other maxed levelled characters, and prevents characters from donating their entire stash in the first hour or day.

    *Point 3 might influence how the Community Mini-Set is unlocked? I’m not certain on this, but staff should reserve final say on how it will be unlocked.

    My other concerns remain:

    – 2-months feels too long.
    – Eligibility to be counted as "active" should be revisited, or at the very least, stated clearly.
    Post #: 33
    9/14/2024 10:13:46   
    Grace Xisthrith
    Member
     

    		 One brief piece of feedback as well that I would like to second is an official staff statement on what makes an account eligible for donations.
    There are some things that the playerbase know work for eligibility, like completing a battle, but there are others that I'm personally curious about, such as watching a ballyhoo video, reorganizing items in the inventory, or buying items. Is there any chance we could get clarification on if any of these other actions that communicate with the server also make a character active?
    AQ  Post #: 34
    9/14/2024 14:09:39   
    Sapphire
    Member

    		If they change this system to something pretty close to what I am suggesting, the requirements in my mind should only be 2. 1. Win a battle on any character of any level 2. The account must have a vault (because this would be where the tokens deposit)

    This cuts out a lot.
    Post #: 35
    9/15/2024 6:48:36   
    KhalJJ
    Member
     

    		 As a quick extra piece of constructive feedback, I wanted to bring up a point about staff miscommunication again. I understand this will be due to workload, hopefully in future this feedback is helpful.

    Personally, I'm kind of annoyed that the color custom stretch goal reward happened in the way it did, because given the full information, I probably would have gone for top 25. Hard to say for certain obviously.

    The main point I want to highlight is that players asked about full set CC, and were told in no uncertain terms that this was not happening. I based my decisions off this official staff communication.

    Now, overall, this decision was almost certainly very positive - anyone placed outside of 25-50 has no reason (imo) to be much annoyed by this (and even in those spots, it is not a massive negative, just minorly annoying), so from a player-wide enjoyment perspective, I think it was probably a good decision.

    From a donation contest success (total donations) perspective however, if anyone else felt the same as myself then it seems likely we would have had more total donations if communication was better here.

    So to summarise - better communication/preparedness on this, and related issues, would probably increase player satisfaction, and maybe have better donation outcomes too.
    Post #: 36
    9/15/2024 9:20:36   
    Branl
    Member

    quote:

    Personally, I'm kind of annoyed that the color custom stretch goal reward happened in the way it did, because given the full information, I probably would have gone for top 25. Hard to say for certain obviously.


    Not to disagree with you that there can't be better communication overall, but they very much didn't have the intent to make color customizable items other than the armor. It was something that was floated as potentially possible, but work constraints and vetting the poll ate up too much time to implement them. Up until the last... 12 hours of the final day, we looked fairly set to barely eek out the 30m benchmark as it was. That takes into account the expected last day bump, but nothing as insane as what happened in this donation drive. Any impromptu stretch goals they made wouldn't have left them with much time to inform people.

    So from here on, the solution seems obvious, right? Let players know of any impromptu stretch goals ahead of time.
    There's an additional problem to consider: where the staff officially set donation benchmarks is very important. If the benchmarks are unreasonably high (and surely 40m given how this contest initially looked would've been unreasonably high), you have the problem of players feeling like they're being expected to meet these unreasonably high benchmarks.
    Further, the problem doesn't actually go away here. People would simply donate based on previous contest precedent regarding benchmarks. Based off that, nobody would've thought a 40m benchmark was plausible until a little earlier than the formal announcement of it this year.

    I think more preparedness on this is worth discussing, I just don't think it's a silver bullet solution given the factors underlying setting official benchmarks that high.

    < Message edited by Branl -- 9/15/2024 10:48:10 >

    _____________________________

    IGN: Teryle

    There's a method to my madness.
    AQ DF  Post #: 37
    9/16/2024 0:24:54   
    Aura Knight
    Member

    		Could stop asking us to decide rewards. It's obvious there's a divide here so surprise us. What can be polled is vague ideas not full player suggestions. This last one was a mess. Until we can get unanimous agreements the players shouldn't be trusted with things like that.

    As for donation itself, custom token amount but limited use option maybe capped to 1m per week. Limit received donations until all active accounts get at least 1. I've seen repeated names too much. Maybe shorten the duration but this means fewer chances. Maybe do it per account not character and put tokens directly to vaults.

    Explain eligibility like others are asking.
    AQ DF AQW  Post #: 38
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: Donation suggestion contests feedback
    Page 2 of 2<12
    Jump to:






    Icon Legend
    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts




    Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

    "AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
    and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
    PRIVACY POLICY


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition